User talk:Wtmitchell/Archive 13 (2019)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Longfellow[edit]

Please see my response to your removal of content I created on the article for Henry Wadsworth Longfellow on that article's talk page. Thank you. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)*[reply]

Ilhan Omar[edit]

Hi - I thought you might be the right admin to protect the Ilhan Omar page as you've already been there. Omar is the first Muslim woman in US Congress, (took her seat just this week), and already she is being attacked by alt-right trolls. I made a simple edit for the sake of her safety and it was immediately reversed. I had to make this appeal to the other editor to have my edit accepted. In light of my argument made there, and given the vandalism is already ramping up, would now not be the right time to apply some measure of protection? Thanks. MarkDask 02:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the edits since your edit on 3 January and didn't see a pattern of vandalism which I thought warranted protection. I don't have much experience in the areas of WP:PP and WP:BLP, though. If you disagree with my assessment, I suggest that you bring this up at WP:RPP. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed three Admins, including yourself, with my concerns and left it at that. Since then the page turned into a vicious partizan dogfight with some extreme vandalism, but at least it has since been PCPPed so the trolling has abated. MarkDask 16:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Total Divas cast table.[edit]

Hey there, I was just wondering if you were able to assist me on the latest edits on the Total Divas page. There is a user who claims just because there is not a source to provide for recurring and guest characters, it should entirely be removed with all recurring cast members being reverted to guests. This to me is inaccurate, as they are trying to determine a cast members status based on their personal views. Whereas the difference between a recurring and guest are based on the amount of episodes they appeared in, and the amount of involvement they have with the storyline/main cast members. Also, this seems like a bold edit as every other television show on Wikipedia contains these types of tables, determining main, recurring, and guest characters, so I find it rather silly that this user is targeting this one show yet none of the other shows. Anywho, any assist would be beneficial, and I'm not looking for "back up" as I am open to change, but I want it to be for the right reasons and accurate representations. I do not want to engage in an edit war with them, nor cross any boundaries with Wikipedia. Thanks! MSMRHurricane (talk) 06:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have not looked at the article in question but, in my experience generally, most of the WP articles concerning sports teams and concerning TV entertainment programs have severe problems of noncompliance with the WP:V and WP:NOR policies. the "other shows about similar topics are just as bad" argument is a non-starter as justification. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RichardBransonJr[edit]

Hi Wtmitchell! I was patrolling through the new user log and noticed that RichardBransonJr was temporarily blocked for vandalism - did you mean to only block this account temporarily? Or did you perhaps mean to block the account indefinitely? I just wanted to message you and let you know about the temporary block in case you meant to do do indefinitely. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked that user during a WP:Huggle session without dropping out of that session to look at a bigger picture. On second look, this does appear to be a WP:VOA. I'm not going to revisit the block length, however. If that account is used for more vandalism, it will incur more blocks and block lengths will escalate. Meanwhile, there is a chance that the account operator will see the error of his ways. See WP:NOPUNISH, WP:BLOCKP. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed this section title in my watchlist and was thinking that the account is also a usernanme violation with respect to Richard Branson. —DoRD (talk)​ 12:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re your revert edits to Baird baronets[edit]

FYI see User:83.240.186.98. The sock master is tenacious and will try time and again with different socks to add text over a long period. However the style and content of user's edits are easy to spot once one is aware that these sockpuppets exist. -- PBS (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations[edit]

100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that only 533 editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

-- Dolotta (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Undocumented v. illegal[edit]

My purpose for reverting the IP's edit on Anchor baby was to keep the original wording there; indeed, the current version is quite aggressive toward a minority group, which seems contrary to the my fundamental principles as a Wikipedia user. There is no need to use "illegal" when "undocumented" is a just as accurate, if not more accurate, term. Hdjensofjfnen (Can I get a connection? Alternatively, trout me.) 22:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to me to me to be an argument asserting that this is a special case in which the WP:EUPHEMISM guideline should not apply and, it seems to me in this particular case, an argument against the opening paragraph of WP:NOR policy (note "children born in the U.S. of parents in the country illegally" in the supporting source cited in this particular case). Such arguments can be presented on the talk pages there.
Looking at the Anchor baby article again, I see that there are currently three appearances of the term undocumented immigrant. I'll consider opening yet another discussion about that on the talk page of that article, though there are currently two about that currently visible on that talk page and others in the talk page archives. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

Administrator changes

added Enterprisey • JJMC89
readded BorgQueen
removed Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

removedEnterprisey

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Filipino American population[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Filipino Americans#Population . RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 03:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Baler[edit]

Hi! Thank you for your edit. I normally always make it a point to provide an edit summary, must have been dozing off, sorry and thanks for the reminder. Regarding my edits: I didn't mean to remove the entire cite ref, I only meant to add the text "seven". But I did insert back the cite reference.

But you are correct, the film Baler is a film, a historical account of real events, using fictional characters for the love story. The 57 was the film's poetic license, but there may have been only 50. I haven't had the chance to read the book referenced. My mistake for mixing up the film and history. Thanks again.Pipamidalton (talk)

Siege of Baler edits[edit]

Hi! Thank you for your edit. I normally always make it a point to provide an edit summary, must have been dozing off, sorry and thanks for the reminder. Regarding my edits: I didn't really remove the entire cite ref, I only meant to add the text "seven". But I did insert back the cite reference if you note the edits.

But you are correct about fact and fiction, the film Baler is a film, a historical account of real events, using fictional characters for the love story. The "57" Cazadores was the film's poetic license, but there may have been only 50. I haven't had the chance to read the book referenced. My mistake for mixing up the film and history. Thanks again.Pipamidalton (talk)

I haven't seen the book or the film. I have not rechecked this but my recollection is that the book is not available online either in full text or in selected previews. I don't know if the book (the supporting source cited in the article) says 50 or 57; I just looked quickly at the article and don't see either figure in it, though I remember (I think) mentioning it to you earlier. I've been assuming good faith by whomever inserted the figure of 50 (which I've just failed to find in the article) and cited the book.
I'm really busy outside of WP at present, and can't take the time right now to do anything further re this.
Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

I note that our Philippines-based correspondent has once again taken up an interest in the dog-related articles. Thanks for your recent edit corrections; I get so close to the content that I cannot see the forest for the trees! Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not constructive?[edit]

Why not constructive? Did you follow the link? If هدهد happens to be an non-constructive link in that place of "Eurasian hoopoe", then you should consider to delete as well the reference to "hudhud" (eventually less accurate than my link, by the way, as it's only a transcription). In my opinion, though, erasing either would be no good idea, anyway. Kind regards. --188.76.243.18 (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My error, apparently. Apologies. See [1], and please remove my warning from your talk page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --188.76.243.18 (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted my change[edit]

Source? I attended the school for 5 years. I think I know what I am talking about. Please put back what you erroneously removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.40.58 (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This apparently concerns this revert. Please read WP:V. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 special circular[edit]

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
 Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)[edit]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting valid edits to pages[edit]

You are clearly violating Wikipedia’s standards, terms of service and conduct. Stop deleting valid and legally, according to the terms of service of Wikipedia, entries and additions. Ninth Centurion (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, you already did it again. I have recorded all your actions and will be consulting my layer to take Civil action against you. Ninth Centurion (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I've looked at my editing history, and this appears to relate to this edit. As suggested in my edit summary there, please see MOS:NOTED; it looks to me like some rewording of the content you inserted is needed. I take layer above to be intended as lawyer, and I interpret that as a WP:legal threat. I'll report that WP:INCIDENT so that it can be looked at by an uninvolved administrator. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit page[edit]

Hi, I got your message about the page I edited. I'm editing it for the artist. I'm new to Wiki as you can probably tell. I thought putting a citation at the beginning saying something like 'directly from the person' would suffice. I'm not sure how else to put a citation in when it is directly from the person. If you can help but also put my edit back up that would be great. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia. However, info obtained from the subject of the article is generally not usable to directly support assertions made in the article. The details of that get a bit complicated; for starters, see WP:V and WP:RS. For info on citations in general, see WP:CITE. For the mechanics of placing citations in an article, see HELP:Footnotes. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page[edit]

I responded to your entry on my talk page just incase it didn't show up in your alerts. Thank you for being willing to discuss my extensive edits to that page with me, and I hope we can further discuss how to improve and greatly expand the page in a way that is fully properly sourced, and I hope at least some of the sources I added and existing sources I cited could be of at least some use. Thank you for your time, help, and guidance. I look forward to improving the article in the future and continuing to learn the ropes as a rookie Wikipedia editor. Titanoboa Constrictor (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for drawing my attention to this. I have responded on your talk page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a commment about the fact that there was a second version of the music video where the script occurs in day light. This second version has mysteriously disappeared from YouTube and all video media without notice. I have searched the reasons of this removal but could not find any. Do you know why did this happend? How come there is no mention of this event in this article? You have remove my comment becouse there was no reference. indded there is no refefernce to be found, anybody can see that the video is gone. Greetings, Daniel

See WP:V. Perhaps if there is report of this in some reliable published source it might have sufficient topical weight for mention in the article supported by a cite of that source. Otherwise, see WP:NOT. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will search for a reference. I find strange that they removed the second version of the video. Regards, Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.109.42.118 (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wt : Compulsory Voting.[edit]

I noted your remark about the change(s)/ deletion I made. I don't have an official publication to refer to or to ascribe this to but I will justify my actions by explaining that I have lived in Belgium for 40 years as a British citizen and legally registered resident. However, I do not have a vote in Belgium (apart from only the local council elections if I specifically register myself for those). I cannot have a national vote unless I become a Belgian citizen. In that way, I can demonstrate that the process of compulsory voting ONLY applies to Belgian citizens and not to foreign nationals (not even EU nationals or to registered residents and taxpayers).

As far as the change about fining non-voters, there was an article in today's newspaper in Dutch which explains why the non-voters will not be fined (records of non-voters are destroyed within six months and do not have time to arrive at the Courts)

https://www.hln.be/nieuws/binnenland/geen-sanctie-voor-wie-niet-stemt~adcc7525/?utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_medium=email&rcid=&utm_source=hln&utm_content=regio&ctm_ctid=c884725147a86faf605bc7a4e6d59e8c

The English translation of the Dutch text is as follows: Don't feel like voting on May 26? You don't have to fear a sanction: the no-show lists are never sent to the public prosecutors' offices and even destroyed after 6 months. Absent invigilators will be prosecuted. In the most recent municipal elections, 358,896 (7.4%) of the almost 4.9 million people obliged to attend did not show up. Those no-shows break the law and risk a fine of 40 to 80 euros. Repeat offenders even risk a fine of up to 200 euros. If you consistently - four times in 15 years - continue to refuse to vote, you will be "punished" with a ... ban on voting. Only: it never comes to a sanction.{{cite news|url=|title=Geen sanctie voor wie niet stemt

“The invigilators of the polling stations send the lists of the absent voters to the civil courts. They keep them for six months and then destroy them according to the guidelines of the national archivist, "the FPS Justice explains. “The lists of absent voters are therefore not submitted to the public prosecutors' offices. Within the Public Prosecution Service the directive applies to prosecute only the absent invigilators of the voting and counting offices. "

Hope all that context more comprehensively and correctly explains the changes I made and that Wikipedia can be adjusted to correctly reflect the actual practice in Belgium.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:1810:c86:4100:44e7:e514:1fc:2fab (talk • contribs) 22:26, May 14, 2019 (UTC)

That appears to concern this revert I made during a WP:Huggle session to an article I don't normally edit, concerning a topic on which I have no expertise. assuming good faith, I have made this further edit to the article. Considering my lack of familiarity with the topic, please check to see that what I have done is reasonable. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

La Croix Water[edit]

Hello, It was not a test and I have done research and it is true



Thanks Hyun Soo-Choo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.34.213 (talk • contribs) 15:38, May 16, 2019 (UTC)

This appears to concern this revert. No comment. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

50.198.150.137, persistent vandal[edit]

Hi, Bill, I notice you were the last to warn User:50.198.150.137 of the consequence of their persistent vandalism. I am afraid it is continuing and perhaps there is a need to prove that you mean what you say! Sweetpool50 (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. See here and here. I try to follow an orderly process in my warnings and blocking, generally in line with WP:WARN, though I rarely use the templates found there directly, and in line with WP:BLOCK. I looked at this anonymous user's contributions (eight edits spaced over five months) and page history and do see a past pattern of occasional but persistent vandalism. I think the informal warning I've placed on the IP talk page might be more effective at this point than a block. If not, persistent vandalism will eventually result in escalating blocks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dlete my edits[edit]

YOU DIELETED MY USEFUL EDITS on Bhadase Maraj. They were Good edits and i thought they weeere useful becaus you have to provide proof i smart and red wikipedia guidlaines i know you have to and they did not so i dleted them because i helped the wikipedia. YOU DO NOT POST ON TALK pAGES ITH OTU PERMISSIONS FROM ME!!!!!!!!! you ARe abusing your power and i could report you luckiy im nice...! Bisbambleboozertimeass (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANSWER NOW[edit]

IF yoau do not answer i WIll report you for bBusing your power becaus thats what you did i can get you banned i know hackers very smart hackers can hack any RobLOX account. you don't want that to hapen do oyu? didnt thing so! SO RESPOND OR ELSE. Bisbambleboozertimeass (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is apparently in response to this reversion, which I made after seeing this edit, the final edit in a series of four edits; my reversion reverted all four edits. I stand by the reversion. I suggest that you read WP:THREATEN. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is 126.209.22.197 problematic editing. Jayjg (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Candace Gingrich[edit]

This is the second time I have been told off for an edit that was purely technical and non-vandalizing. Candace Gingrich prefers they/them pronouns and it is the policy of Wikipedia to refer to people by the pronouns they prefer. The only other edit I did was change a reference to their first name to their last name, which is also in accordance with the policy I believe, but I could be mistaken. Please respond on my talkpage or respond here but notify me on my talkpage. 108.245.173.217 (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My revert changed more than I intended. I've redone it to revert only the change from "her senior" to "their senior". You changed an assertion saying that Newt Gingrich "is more than 20 years her senior" to one saying that he is "is more than 20 years their senior". The word "they" in your version would refer to the couple, Newt and Candice, and the meaning of the sentence after your change would be that Newt is more than 20 years older than that couple, of which he, Newt, is one of the two members. That is nonsensical. Apologies for the first too-broad revert and thanks for calling it to my attention. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :) 108.245.173.217 (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I fixed the dead link for the source cited in support of the assertion in the article saying that Candice "uses they/them pronouns" and, as I could not find support for that assertion in there, I added a {{fv}} tag at that point in the article. I googled around a bit and found this source which has some seemingly relevant information, but which does not quite support the assertion as it appears in the article. At this point, I have not further edited the article beyond placing the tag. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I see this, which says that Candice says that "using preferred gender pronouns is less about extending courtesy than of practicing basic human dignity." That article, however, does not detail what Candice's pronoun preferences might be for others to use in referring to Candice as a person (or to Candice and Newt, which is the point of all of this). The article does contain a list of some additional options for expressing gender neutrality in the use of pronouns, but does not say whether Candice prefers to have others use the pronouns on that list. That article I linked here earlier The article at the repaired HRC link quotes Candice as having said, “You should respect how someone wants to be referred to” but, though that article does contain some information abut Candice's preferences when referring to Bradley Manning (now Chelsea), I don't find any information in there about Candice's preferences regarding pronoun use by others in referring to Candice. I'm wondering how much WP:original research there is here abut that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The HRC link is dead. I just saw in the article itself that Gingrich prefers they/them pronouns and Gingrich is genderqueer, which usually (but not always!) means they/them pronouns. Honestly, I am just going to leave the article alone. I am writing something for a course I'm taking and my DSPD-riddled brain will probably call me to sleep soon. 108.245.173.217 (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see that this edit, which introduced the assertion regarding Candice's preferences re the use of gender-specific pronouns, was made back in 2017 by @TheOneWithTheBoringUsername:. That editor does not have an active talk page and has not been an active editor since 2017. I've {{ping}}ed that editor here, and am hoping for a response. If I see no response, I may re-edit the Candace Gingrich article to remove all this insufficiently supported confusion re preferences about gender-specific pronoun use. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Candace Gingrich#Preference re gender-specific pronoun use. Please make any further comment regarding this there, not here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics of Filipino Americans[edit]

Hi, why did you restore this cite? [| DOFA ] Did you check the result of your work? Neils51 (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see that my edit changed more than I intended. The removed cite wasn't a dead link, though I just mistakenly said that it was in an edit summary -- it went to this page, which I thought fit the "invalid link" description in the edited version which had removed that cite. I looked at the oldest saved version of that URL at archive.org, and found what looked like the source intended to be cited, and I bolixed up the edit to restore the removed cite with a link going to that old version of the page. I've just bolixed up a fix for that several times, but I think I've finally got it right. My errors all around, and I thank you for rubbing my nose in them. I'll try to be less hurried and more careful in future. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

uuuhhhhhh, why did you do that.[edit]

Because i don't believe as well because i'm trying to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.33.99.251 (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit busy at the moment and also trying to do some WP:Huggle work on the side. I'm editing a lot of articles. Could you please give me a bit more of a clue what you are asking about? Perhaps the name of the article of concern? Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts for countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 09:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ceiling Fan[edit]

Re: Ceiling fans. My source is from several manufactures instructions & my personal experience. I am a registered electrical contractor in Australia (REC 11756) & a licensed A grade electrician (Victoria)- 27918. I have 30 years experience in my trade. I have installed a few thousand sweep/ceiling fans (ianmason1971@gmail.com or elphin.electrics@gmail.com). Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.168.255.111 (talk) 10:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article "United States Army uniforms in World War II" extremely inaccurate.[edit]

Tried to fix a bad article.

This article has extensive inaccuracies. I added sourced edits in the first chapter since there were many inaccuracies and there were of course no sources for that section at all.

The other chapters are also heavily inaccurate and either need massive revision or should be eliminated altogether.

I largely wrote the uniform section in Wikipedia "United States Army Air Forces".

To illustrate the point I will list the inaccuracies of the "Class B" section alone. Except for the first chapter which is now corrected the rest of the chapters are just as bad.

The A,B,C,D uniforms in the article are just totally made up. The fact A and B are modern terms is stated but there wasn't then or now a C or D in the U.S. Army. What is given does not even correspond with USMC A B C D uniforms.

1. The campaign hat could be worn with any uniform.

2. Spread Collar refers to a very wide opening for the tie. The Army shirt was not a spread collar type.

3. Rank was not worn on officer's shirt shoulder straps to "prevent snipers". Prior to 1942 the U.S. pin was worn on the right shirt collar and the branch insignia on the left with rank on the shoulder straps if the shirt was being worn as an outer garment. In 1942 this was changed so the rank was removed from the shoulder straps and the U.S. was replaced by the rank on the right collar point.

4. Enlisted personnel did not wear insignia disks on their shirts in WWII. That was a post war development.

5. Enlisted branch of service disks were not worn on the garrison "overseas" cap.

6. Enlisted service stripes were indeed authorized on service shirt sleeves.


The photo of Donald Prell, while I'm sure chosen to honor a WWII veteran shows a blue infantry cord which was not created until the Korean War era. It is also being worn with armored branch insignia which would not be authorized at any time in the U.S. Army. Although I sympathize with the desire to use a WWII vet's photo it's not an accurate WWII uniform example for the purpose of this article.

I could go on but you get the point. This is but one small section. Most of these are easily sourced in the U.S. Army WWII uniform regulations. I am willing to fix the errors but the edit will be very extensive virtually eliminating whole chapters and adding others.

Please give me feedback if you think an administrator will allow me to correct this with well sourced material or at least put in a disputed notice.

Thank you very much, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfhound63 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see that this was probably prompted by this edit of mine, which I made in haste earlier tonight. Haste usually leads to brusqueness, and did in this case. Apologies if that caused offense.
Before looking at the background, I was about to suggest that you discuss this on the article's talk page. Looking at the article and talk page histories, I see that you've done that. The lack of a talk page discussion to support the {{disputed}} tag you placed in the article was probably the reason I reverted that placement (I'm guessing there -- I don't really remember). The talk page discussion should produce results, and will provide a forum for you to propose intended action and ask for comments or objections. I don't know much about the article topic, but I'll try to take a look at the article tomorrow and may comment in the discussion. Your edit history suggests that you are new to Wikipedia, and I've placed a welcome message on your talk page which contains a number of links which ought to be helpful. Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

removed Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

removed Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you speak English?[edit]

Do you perceive serious quality in this?

Now the Mount is the object of the International program «7 Summits» (climbing the highest tops of all continents). Elbrus is especially lucky nowadays — in spite it is the part of Caucasus, one can reach its bottom without special frontier guard's permit, the way along Baksan valley is comfortable and safe. Hotels in Terskol, Bochki huts, Priut 11 and the new modern hut some meters higher than Priut — do Elbrus climbs more and more comfortable, and from day to day a lot of groups go to their dream — Elbrus tops. But, except some events — all of these climbs are of «tourist class». But 15–20 years ago those slopes were the place for serious mountaineers ambitions battles!

Presumably, you do, as you put it back into an article after I removed it. What level of English do you speak? What do you understand an encyclopaedia to be? 94.66.221.72 (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That concerns this edit, which I mistakenly committed just a few minutes ago by a mis-click reversionn in WP:Huggle. I was actually in the process of looking at the consequences of that prior to action to clean it up when I saw notification of this talk page message. Apologies for my mistake. A site-effect of that reversion would have been a message on your user talk page; please remove that. Thanks Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your apology. I find that it is very common for people to undo anonymous edits, absolutely regardless of what they did, including examples of appallingly low quality writing much worse than this. Therefore I assumed you were acting in this inexplicable way deliberately, as so many do, and reacted with anger. As it was a mistake, I apologise for that. 94.66.221.72 (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. On a second look at my offending edit, I see that the auto-generated edit summary includes (HG) and (Tags: Huggle, Rollback, PHP7). These both indicate that the edit was made from WP:Huggle, an anti-vandal editing tool from which I was probably engaged in reverting examples of appallingly low quality writing much worse than this in numerous other WP articles. My reversion in this case was probably triggered by seeing the line reading <nowiki>*</nowiki>''record of the race'', which actually (1) not only did not come from you and (2) was not a problem but which (3) I must have mis-taken as beginning with <nowiki></nowiki> (that is, without the asterisk) -- which would have been a problem of a kind which I see very often from anonymous editors. So, it was a triple-barreled error on my part. I should not have made that error, but I did, and you fixed it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edits?[edit]

Hi, just got a message that I made an edit to some Australian Cavalry page? I don't edit or make anything on Wikipedia so i'm not sure how I got linked to it. Apparently my IP address was tagged. Anywho, no idea what's up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.217.166.92 (talk • contribs) 11:47, June 15, 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be the edit in question. It is a reversion I made from WP:Huggle of an edit which did not meet Wikipedia's WP:V criteria. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:151.73.123.255[edit]

You need to learn the history before saying my recent edit to Indonesia–Suriname relations seemed less than neutral to YOU. I can assure you my edit is less neutral only to YOU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.73.123.255 (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I won't get into a discussion about this, but see History of Indonesia#Colonial era, then back up and read the entire article. Also read WP:NPOV. Also, since you know in your own mind that your assertion is true, note this quote from WP:DECISION, "If an editor knows that a POV statement would be true, they should instead use neutral statements backed up by reliable citation and let the reader make the conclusion." If you want more discussion, you might try the WP:Teahouse. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Game Boy Micro Page[edit]

Hello, I saw your message about editing the Game Boy Micro page. While I do not have a citation, I can only provide my own experience from making the modification about the Game Boy Micro actually being compatible with the GameCube, but only through DIY means. I wanted to just notify others that is it capable of having the Game Boy Micro run GameCube related software. I made the cable and have video proof that such a modification works, albeit I'm not the first one to actually show proof. 66.165.177.8 (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:V and WP:NOT. This is not the sort of content which belongs on Wikipedia. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retartorius[edit]

That's u 72.52.87.96 (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If u delet dis you violate WP:TALK 72.52.87.96 (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be in reaction to this revert. No further comment needed abut that. Re the add-on comment, see WP:OWNTALK. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Warlocks Motorcycle Club (Pennsylvania), it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

philantropist is a codeword for the rich. when someone's main contribution is philantropist you can be certain that all they do is give some of their warloot to their own charity to deduct taxes. goyim know this all over the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.164.143 (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to relate to this revert. I stand by the revert. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Response to my edit of ORS page just now[edit]

Hi Wtmitchell, I am responding to the message you sent me about an edit I just did on ORS page of Wikipedia. You mention that my edit seemed to be a test case. It was not. I was trying to add some value by citing my own publication of a case study which I published some years ago. Please can you reverse your deletion of my edit. I am new to all this. Tim Dunne — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:52B:1858:2C1C:FB3D:A87B:FB3 (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick look, and it looks like either a mis-click or an error on my part from WP:Huggle. I've undone my reversion. Sorry. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On a third look, I see that I corrected an obvious cite formatting error and went on without carefully looking at the format, which has other problems. I couldn't find the cited article quickly so as to try to fix it up. Please take another look at this; see {{cite journal}} and help:footnotes. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elmohamady[edit]

Hello Sir;

I've added an Egyptian news source. And regarding the name pronunciation, the one who added the incorrect info about English fans changing the lad's name pronunciation should have added a source to back up their claim. I am Egyptian and we don't even have "Al" in our names, our names have "El" like Elneny, El Shennawy, El Sharaawy..etc. Thanks sir. 

AhmedTru39 (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Seriously -- thanks a lot. I'm used to seeing changes to articles on sports and entertainment being changed by editors who haven't bothered to learn anything about WP's policies, and who seemingly could not care less about them, This was a refreshing change. I confess that I don't know anything about sport and not very much about Egypt. The edit summary of my edit was auto-generated by the WP:Huggle editing tool I was using, and the (HG) there indicates that. My reversion of your edit was a fairly routine reversion of a change to biographical article about a living person which did not cite a supporting source. I often let such edits slide in those topical categories because editing abuse is so common there; My reversion of your change was an exception to my normally more lax standards there. Thanks for your subsequent attention, welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for being interested enough to become a registered editor. I've placed a welcome message on your user talk page with what should be some useful links. Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

removed 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Saint Malo, Louisiana#Blogs are not reliable sources [edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Saint Malo, Louisiana#Blogs are not reliable sources . RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 05:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

survivorship bias[edit]

You said it didn't have a source. It doesn't and shouldn't have a source, it's general knowledge. I also note that there was no source in the (inferior, but comparable) example before it, or in the introduction at all, or in several whole paragraphs of the article, which have peacefully resided on the page for a long time. Before that, the edit was removed by someone else because it didn't improve the page; I use simple, understandable language but I say it actually contained more useful information than half the article.24.59.152.85 (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC) I convoluted and complicated my edit so that it would sound more professional.[reply]

That was a quick judgement made during a WP:Huggle session. I took another look, and it reads like top-of-the-head original research to me. Also, the language is unencyclopedic. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Ahmed Ghanam[edit]

Hello sir. It's a translation from another wiki "Arz" and I'm working on it. Hello sir? Why are you trying to delete Ahmed Ghanam page? it's just a "Seeds" and I'm working on it. Please Hold — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adham Hamam (talk • contribs) 14:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adham Hamam (talk • contribs)

I don't remember doing that, but I've been doing a lot of editing this morning; some from WP:Huggle. If I disrupted your work by mistake, I apologize. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

176.255.45.108[edit]

Sorry to modify your block of Special:Contribs/176.255.45.108! Usually I get an "edit conflict" if I try to block someone at the same time, but it seems for some reason this one went through. It looks like we selected the same block settings so I won't modify it, but I just wanted to leave a note in case you thought I'd intentionally adjusted your block. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No sweat. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important issue[edit]

Sorry to drag you into this, but would you mind weighing in on a discussion at Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States concerning terminology? I noticed you recently changed instances of "undocumented" to "illegal", acknowledging that, while the latter may not be politically correct, it reflects the subject of the article. Despite this, users continue to insist that we use "undocumented" because certain reliable sources use it, when a consensus does not yet appear to have been reached to do so. Some go so far as to change the terminology, using this argument or something akin to wp:IDON'TLIKEIT. I'm considering opening an RfC, as this issue does not yet appear to have been settled. Again, sorry to drag you into this. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Turn Off the Light, Vol. 1. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong editor that I revert[edit]

Hi, I wanted to let you know when Ireverted my unsourced addition, but you opted to reverted it back my mistake because it is that user who stared add unsourced addition of her family. Sheldybett (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this refers to this revert, which I made from WP:Huggle. I was trying to fix the vandalism there, and I think you and I must have had an unrecognized wp:edit conflict. I see that you have fixed that, for which I thank you. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Old Wykehamists[edit]

Lucas D'Oyly Carte (1872), model for PG Woodehouse's detective character Psmith, older brother of Rupert D'Oyly Carte, barrister and diplomat[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayneparish (talk • contribs) 17:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to concern this revert, which I made from WP:Huggle after seeing Huggle's presentation of just this edit by you which added '''Bold text''' to the beginning of the article. Your edit made other changes further down in the articles, and your response apparently concerns those changes. I had not looked far enough down in the article to see those other changes. Your edit summary did concern those other changes, and I made the revert based on what I saw that the edit did rather than on your summary of the edit. In this edit, I have undone my reversion except for the addition of '''Bold text''' to the beginning of the article. I have left that addition reverted. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may as well delete the entire site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.146.164.195 (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ wikitree~~~~

Copyright problem on Abortion in the Philippines[edit]

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijgo.12452, which is not released under a compatible license. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill,

you send me a message regarding the Libertad (coin) -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertad_(coin) Can you please fix the table under Libertad Silver Series (Brilliant Uncirculated)! The whole mintages are gone. It used to be the best source for this information. Now it's all gone! WHY???? Please return! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Togri87 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Libertad coin mintages gone! Libertad Silver Series (Brilliant Uncirculated)[edit]

Hi,

please bring back the original table with mintages of Libertad Silver Series (Brilliant Uncirculated)! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertad_(coin)

Thank you!!!

Tobias — Preceding unsigned comment added by Togri87 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Managed to do it by myself. Sorry for bothering you and thanks again... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Togri87 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad it worked out. I removed the notice you placed in the article because that should have been on the talk page for the article, not in the article itself; that removal is where the message you received came from. I don't know anything at all about the article topic but I took a look at the article and saw that the table in that article section had serious formatting errors. I hid that screwed up table inside of a WP:invisible comment which said that the table needed to be fixed by someone familiar with the article topic, expecting that some regular editor of the article would fix it, and you have apparently done that. I should have tracked down the edit which screwed up the table in the first place but, aside from being completely unfamiliar with the article and its topic, I didn't think I had the time to do that. I see from your editing history that you are new to Wikipedia, so I have placed a welcome message on your talk page with what should be some useful links. Welcome to Wikipedia -- if what you've managed to do here in very little time is any indication, you could be a valuable contributor. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(455502) 2003 UZ413[edit]

OK, so I have some trouble getting an otherwise unremarkable efn tag to work, because wikicode is being evil at the moment (I'm just waiting for it to collapse completely into a tiny (((1))) like all attempts to use "small" outside of HTML tags does right now), and that's a cue to revert every single thing I've done on the page, which amounts to probably an hour-plus of actual updates, additional research and cites, and other corrections? I'm annoyed enough at the code, and now that response, to ask you what you're smoking today. I'd have understood deleting the tag or reverting that shorter run of edits attempting to insert it, but absolutely everything, nearly 3000 characters of actual useful information and revision?

I've fully annotated every change I've made, if examined it's clearly not the work of someone out to vandalise the page. Perhaps I should have used the sandbox for the last few, but each change I made was one I expected to work and be the final case (the last one being out of frustration to see if anything would display at all), and given the way it seems to be glitching, I don't trust that it won't display just fine in the sandbox but then continue throwing an inexplicable tantrum when transferred to the page proper.

If you actually want to help out, rather than just blindly tipping a bucket of white-out over everything done to the page today because of a momentary bit of weirdness (I hit an edit conflict at the point of replacing the faecetious - but finally actually working - tag with something else myself), then a nicer response would be to tell me with a more expert eye 1) why the thing isn't working when I'm not putting any kind of unusual material inside it, even vs other similar ones already on the page, and 2) how to make it work as intended. 146.199.60.87 (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above apparently was sparked by this revert, which I did from WP:Huggle. On a second look, I see that the edit summary saying "I bet this'll work though" ought to have alerted me to look at the recent edit history of that article and try to figure out what prompted the edit I reverted was intended to do. I missed that. I'm too busy with other things right now to try to figure out what's going on, and I see that you've continued on editing that article in any case. Sorry abut the confusion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

fixing a page[edit]

Hi Mr Mitchell I wanted to thank you on behalf of the Mayor for removing the vandalism from his page so quickly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Curtis_(politician)) much appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.85.229.239 (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Venus Xtravaganza[edit]

My edit is not vandalism. Putting her birth name which is considered a deadname on her page is triggering for trans people and disrespectful to her memory. Please stop reverting the changes to the birth name. She is known as and famous for being Venus. That was her name. Respect that and her lived experience. Legaleagle2025 (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to relate to this revert. This concerns the birth_name parameter of {{infobox person}}, and I'm going by the documentation of that infobox. The term "deadname" was new to me; I see that it apparently relates to info in Transphobia#Misgendering and exclusion (which is unrelated to WP policy or content guidelines). It may or may not also relate to info in WP:TRANSNAME, which is likewise unrelated to WP policy or content guidelines. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), which is a WP content guideline, does not appear to contain any guidance on this. I see that you have unreverted my change and I won't contest that but I will suggest that perhaps this needs discussion in a more appropriate venue. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carroll Glenn[edit]

You deleted my changes even though I had provided a source (which you also deleted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grisélidis (talk • contribs) 19:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this here from the top and added a heading. It apparently concerns this edit which looks like an error on my part. I've undone the reversion; please remove the auto-generated message about this from your user talk page. Apologies for the error. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

O Brother, Where Art Thou?[edit]

Hello - thank you for the message. I do question how the revision " ... did not appear constructive" as I just watched the movie and the character's exact quote was as I updated on the movie's page; "... bottom of a pretty dearn (sp?) big lake" vs. the original quote of - "... bottom of a really big lake." Considering the movie theme is Mississippi in the 1930's, the language used (by George Clooney) properly depicted the era. Here is a clip of the last scene, where he makes this statement (at 00:53) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OouuZzqaQbU Thank you~

___________________________________________

Hello, I'm Wtmitchell. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to O Brother, Where Art Thou?— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by My3Angelz (talk • contribs) 20:34, August 25, 2019 (UTC)

I've made a lot of edits recently and I initially did not recall this one. According to my edit history, I did make a revert to the O Brother article here from WP:Huggle. Taking a second look at that revert, I see that it apparently undid a grammatical correction which should have been let stand and (I'm guessing this is what prompted my revert) changed "a pretty dearn big lake" back to its earlier phraseology of "a really big lake". I didn't notice that this was in a direct quote at the time. I now see that it is, but neither version of the quote was supported except that it was generally a quote from the movie (WP:V does require support for direct quotes). You've now supplied a link to a YouTube snippet which supports the "dearn big" phraseology, and I've edited the article to cite that. Thanks for the correction. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for deletion[edit]

I just need to request you that please delete two pages - User talk:106.205.152.95 and User talk:122.162.80.48 as the reason of criteria G6. We don't need those pages any more. Thank you. 117.97.157.252 (talk) 07:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to pass on this. It's outside of what I normally do and, though I haven't explored them, I'd rather not remove access to the page histories without a good reason. Even though these are user talk pages of anon users they are user talk pages, and user talk pages have different handling criteria than the mainspace pages I normally deal with. If this is some sort of cleanup activity, it'll get done in the course of normal routine without requiring special action by an admin. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of "Request for deletion"[edit]

The pages were created by the evaded blocked IPs, and we don't need those pages any more. So please delete those pages. Thank you. 117.97.157.252 (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Done. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Mgasparin (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reversion. That is related to this reverted edit, which is probably the result of an unrecognized WP:edit conflict. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:106.205.152.95[edit]

FYI: you deleted User talk:106.205.152.95 on the grounds that it was "created by an IP evading blocks", but it was in fact a block evading IP that was trying to have it deleted. That is also why it was extended confirmed protected. --MrClog (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I was AGFing, following on #Request for deletion and #Continuation of "Request for deletion" above. I'll not honor such requests in future if they're outside of the range of activities I'm comfortable with. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

added Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
readded Floquenbeam • Lectonar
removed DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

removed Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

removed Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka, Missouri[edit]

Can you expand upon your reasoning for giving me a warn-1 for vandalism for this edit, in which I rollback an IP's (with two warnings this month) nonconstructive edit in which the population of Eureka, Missouri was changed from the well cited '10,189' to the nonsensical 'Baylor'.

I'm a little confused as to how my rollback is considered vandalism and the version of the article with a population of 'Baylor' is considered more useful? -- Curt内蒙 20:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was done from WP:Huggle and was part of a series of edits, but I do recall this one -- I remember seeing "Baylor" as the population_est parameter in an infobox and thinking "that's not right". I think it was an unrecognized edit conflict and I probably moved on too fast and did not notice the results. Please remove that warning from your talk page. My apologies. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, and done. Have a nice day. Curt内蒙 05:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tico Tico[edit]

Hi, I'm Alex. I did not edit the article, I translated it into Russian, because it is not in this language. What was my mistake? I do not understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexDMashCop (talk • contribs) 12:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to concern this revert of an edit to the article here on the English Wikipedia by AlexDMashCop. That edit was inappropriate. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Armed Forces of the Philippines[edit]

Not only did you undo my removal of blatantly unsourced and unencyclopedic content, but you also put a warning on my talk page accusing me of vandalism? Dude, you're an admin - you should know much better than this.

Well, unless of course you consider "Sadly, everything was back to stone age after 1986 so-called People Power Revolution and after they ousted Marcos", "labeling political opponents as communists and unsourced crap to be valid content.

With all due respect, please don't post on my talk page again, and please leave admin work in regards to my edits to other admins who understand the difference between vandalism and removing vandalism. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This concerns this revert, and you're right that my reversion erred in restoring the unsupported claims you had removed (one said "A missile development program known as the 'Sta. Barbara project. [...]'"). I cherrypicked that out of the content you removed, though; there were also grammar errors and a POV assertion saying "Sadly, everything was back to stone age after 1986 so-called People Power Revolution and after they ousted Marcos." in the content your edit removed and my revert restored. I don't really recall what I was thinking when I made this reversion but, looking at it again, I clearly ought to have looked at the content you removed before restoring it. I think what prompted my ill-considered revert, though, was the unsupported assertion that "Ferdinand Marcos used the AFP, through the regime's secret police force, the National Intelligence and Security Authority, to arrest, torture or kill his political opponents" which was in the content with which your edit replaced the removed content. I probably thought that such an assertion was too strong to stand without clear support and pulled WP:Huggle's revert&warn trigger. I don't think I was completely wrong in making the revert, but I acknowledge that it was ill-considered as done from Huggle. I should have thought more about this before pulling the trigger, dropped out of Huggle, and looked at it more closely. My apologies for the error. Other editors have done some cleanup, including removing the POV "Sadly, [...]" bit, and I've edited the remaining content from the edit you removed and I restored further here. I'm not an expert in this area. and it could no doubt be further improved. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I could have dealt with this using more polite language. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The truth[edit]

Hello, I am here to spill the truth. If you do not let us change this, then the students will never be treated with respect. Help the poor girls. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letsspillthetruth (talk • contribs) 10:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is apparently related to this revert. See WP:NOT. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deon Swiggs[edit]

My edit is purely referencing the article linked. Please do not undo edits with out viewing. You will see. I have been making constructive edits to pages. thanks! Damobdotboss (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and apologies. Most such edits are unsupported violations of WP:BLP. The question of whether this factoid belongs in the lead section is open, but I'm not going to discuss it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!![edit]

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 12:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche PAC[edit]

The people in that photograph are far right incels, this is not a discussion, you do not need to reply. If however, you choose to reply, you will be considered as a neo nazi also. Once again, you need not reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.202.199 (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to cncern this revert. I did need to look up the word incel. I stand by that revert and have also reverted a similar follow-on bit of vandalism. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Weeknd Net Worth[edit]

Hello, you undid my edit removal of The Weeknd's net worth. I did list a reason for the removal, perhaps you did not see? The reason I removed is that the $92 million figure currently being cited as his "net worth" is actually the amount of money he made in a single year: https://www.forbes.com/pictures/593a84e2a7ea434078d4e7b0/6-the-weeknd-92-million/#5abe70bd7d1f — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluetahoe99 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Initially, from the article history, I thought this related to this drive-by revert by me. However that revert didn't have anything to do with a $92 million figure. A subsequent edit. here, by another editor did. There have been other edits to the article after that one. My edit was a drive-by fix, and I'm presuming that other editors of the article, including you, will be able to come to consensus on this. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nosh me off[edit]

and call me stan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.200.142 (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be in reaction to this revert. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to put it back — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.200.142 (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's been re-reverted. The cited supporting source is not previewable online, but see here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm going to do it again later probably if I remember — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.200.142 (talk) 12:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jonnui (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)The Trial of Christine Keeler (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial_of_Christine_Keeler) edit[edit]

Jonnui (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)Hello. I'm a composer for film and TV with a number of notable credits to my name. I (tried to) edit the for an upcoming BBC six-part drama called The Trial of Christine Keeler today for which I wrote the music. I simply wanted to add my name as the composer in the 'Music by' section. Composers are routinely mentioned in these pages. You replied that it seemed like a test edit and has been removed. That's true in a sense, though it also true that I did write this music. Here is the IMDB cast/crew page to show it: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8001036/fullcredits/?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm If i did this incorrectly and it's up to me to correct it, I'd be really greatful for a step-by-step guide on how to do so, since the sheer number of pages devoted to the many subtleties of different kind of wikipedia article edits is a little bamboozling. Many thanks, Jon[1][reply]

Hi. I've restored that even though it is unsupported (re support, see WP:BURDEN). It was removed as an unintentional reversion of this edit which also added an empty <ref></ref>. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8001036/fullcredits/?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm

A cupcake for you![edit]

Thank you for blocking the IP vandalizing the Nike Davies-Okundaye article. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciated. Yum. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
oh no, a new IP has started vandalizing. Do you have the power to protect the page from non-registered users? If not can you advise me on who to contact? Any help would be appreciated. I can't imagine who would target that article. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa cardui[edit]

Hi, too frequently now when we correct mistakes on a page that is misreferenced, we get told we have to make a "new reference". Wikipedia needs to do soemthing about this, because I keep having to remove informationthat was false inthe first place, and that was badly referenced by the article (when you go to the referenced article, it shows the info on wikipedia tobefalse).

This is the second time that has happened to me,that I REMOVEsomething incorrect and then it gets re-injected because I now have to add a new reference, whereas the old reference never made those claims in the first place. Please do something about that. Have people double check the use of references if you like, but don't keep asking us to ADD more references when we are correcting a misreference in the first place. Ive done it anyway, but it is highly disturbing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.112.238.250 (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's disturbing to me too, but I don't know the answer. With WP as free and open as it is, I doubt that there is an answer. One of the things which really sets my teeth on edge, besides boneheaded anons with less than a primary school level of knowledge not only of the topic of the article they are editing but even of the English language, is that I see so many editors inserting new and unsupported content in between supported information and the <ref> introducing the cite which supported that previously present content and the newly inserted content which often has nothing whatever to do with the information in the <ref>'d source. I don't see an answer to these problems other than further restricting the qualifications required for WP editing privileges, . Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revision of right wing regimes[edit]

Hey I saw that you undid my changes on the page for right wing dictatorships.

The reason I got rid of several fascist states is because fasicm is inherently left wing as expressed in its many, many socialist policies. For supporting evidence please consult https://mises.org/library/nazism-socialism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.253.62 (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BURDEN. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My revert was triggered by the insertion of your significant but unsupported assertion. It was made from WP:Huggle, and the canned explanation placed on your talk page was probably neither sufficient nor entirely appropriate. After a quick second look at your edit which included that assertion, it seems to me that the article could benefit from expansion providing clarification of that point in the article body, possibly with some of the items you removed as examples with cite-supported explanations of why "right wing" categorization does not fit them. Note that I have not looked at any of those items myself. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!![edit]

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 16:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My mein kamf edits[edit]

Wtmitchell I believe i made amazing edits to the mein kmf page and ur a big doo doo head for changing them. frick u man

  1. Minecraftisbetterandmyeditwasamazing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianisminecraftbetterwhat (talk • contribs) 20:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is about my reverts of vandalism here and here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming an Admin[edit]

Hello I Have Some Questions. I Am Wondering If I Could Have Admin Powers (Please Don't Delete Me) Because I Am A Good Person And I Would Like To Help THe Community Out. I Have So Much Info You Would Be Amazed. Please Respond Back Anytime. Thank You. The BlizzardYt (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Mok[edit]

Hi Wtmitchell, I'm not sure why you reverted my previous edit, but please don't. I'm an expert on Amok/Ho Mok, and the previous editor vandalised the page contrary to what the sources were saying. You said on my talk page that my changes werent constructive, but they totally were. Use the talk page on Ho mok if you wish to discuss this further. Thanks. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was my error. I apologize. Please remove the associated auto-generated message from your user talk page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All good, no problem! Thanks Apples&Manzanas (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Beauchamp, Titanic. 30th October 2019[edit]

The story in the newspaper recently about the George Beauchamp from Hull is a mistake. The true George Beauchamp was exactly as Encyclopaedia Titanica explains. George lived with my family in the last few years of his life at the woolpack inn Redbridge. He was born in Eling and if you look at google earth you will see Eling and Redbridge are each side of the river Test. except for going to sea he never strayed far from where he was born. He was not on the Lusitania. The George Beauchamp from Hull is completely different man. He may have just told tales to amuse his granddaughter not expecting it to be taken as fact. I was told as a child not to mention the Titanic to George as he didn’t like to speak of it. I was nineteen when he died at the woolpack. His death was reported in the Southern Evening Echo. He never married so I feel it’s up to me to put matters right I thought Wikipedia should get it right. I am just learning to use an I pad so I am sorry if I am putting things in the wrong place, I have no idea how to work this, I am doing my best. Please put the record straight. In good Faith, Maureen 81.152.245.90 (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not easy to fix; I just stumbled across it in passing and posted a comment about the apparent problem on the article talk page when I couldn't find a quick solution. The difficulty in my mind is with WP:BURDEN, WP:IRS and, possibly, with WP:DUE re conflicting sources. Perhaps you have access to some solidly reliable supporting sources and, just possibly, a better image which is solidly supported by such sources and which does not have copyright problems. I've been around too long to just jump in and make corrections willy-nilly without respecting WP policies and I'm not into the topic enough to find sources of clear reliability supporting a particular image. I took another look at the image page, hoping that the user who inserted the image was more focused on this topic than I, but I see here that that user is no longer active. No talk page has been created for that image and, based on past experience, I don't think creating one and posting a comment there would attract interested editors. Sorry I can't be more help. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(added) I've never seen the Encyclopaedia Titanica and could not preview it online. I didn't find anything useful re this in the sources listed here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Beauchamp Titanic.[edit]

I see you added about the Lusitania citing the indecent as your source. The story came from the Hull daily mail who first told the story of the hull George Beauchamp. The other daily papers took this as true and ran with it without checking the truth The real George Beauchamp was not on the Lusitania. Check the crew list.81.152.245.90 (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC) Maureen81.152.245.90 (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Check my edit again -- that's not what I did. Also see WP:DUE re sources which differ and WP:BURDEN re crew lists. I'm no expert on this and don't have sources at my fingertips. Sometimes I have the free time to search for sources supporting or refuting stuff done by others, but I don't presently have the time. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About "Ukonkivi" and "Ukonsaari"[edit]

About "Ukonkivi" and "Ukonsaari"

Hello!

As native Finnish speaker I corrected some errors connected to the topics mentioned above.

1. ) There is lot of people in our country still preferring the old, own religion. Therefore it is not correct to insist that certain sacred / special places WAS sacred, but IS / ARE sacred. In Estonia our cousins there do have organised religion "Maausk" ( maa = land or country, usk ( Estonian usk; Finnish usko ) = faith or religion > religion of the country ). In Finland probably the same percent of population is quietly in the old religion, but we do not manifest it. For centuries it has been forced by law to be Christian here, despite of what one might think alone.

2. ) "ukko" and "äijih" are normal / ordinary words, both just meaning "old man" or "grandfather". The very same words written "Ukko" and "Äijih" are used to refer God here. "Äijih" is Samish; the very same word in Finnish is äijä.

Please, do not sabotage when I'm trying fix things! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.72.70.236 (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This apparently relates th this revert. I stumbled across your edit to that article during a WP:Huggle session. I don't speak Finnish, and my revert had nothing to do with the details of Finnish language or usage. Rather, it had to do with WP:BURDEN. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not constructive but reality[edit]

Dear Mr Mitchell You said to me that my edit was not constructive. But it is reality for hundreds of thousand of adults living today. Adults living with autism who are not afraid of people like you anymore. We won’t be silenced with drugs, we won’t be tranquilized to the point that we can’t even think anymore because we make you uncomfortable! Those drugs cause tardive dyskinsisia’s, why don’t you look that up it’s on Wikipedia. (IamAnAspieUnicorn) (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to relate to this revert. I've taken another look at that revert and see from a look at this source cited in the article that it was in error. I have undone the revert and I apologize for the error; please remove the associated auto-generated message from your user talk page. I did this during a WP:Huggle session and would have been looking at just a small bit of the edit immediately preceding my revert, but I don't recall this particular edit or what caused me to mistakenly do this revert -- it could have been an unrecognized mis-click on my part. Again, my apologies. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my edits[edit]

Why did you delete my edits to the Sage International page? The information on founders of the charter school is incomplete and I updated it with a reference to the charter document listing all of the founders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.54.218 (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This relates to this revert, which I did in a WP:Huggle session. I don't recall that particular revert, but I see in the diff that what would have caught my eye is the <ref></ref> right at the top. That is probably what prompted my revert, and I see that the edit summary of my recert says, "editing tests', which which comes from a clickable menu in Huggle. Looking at the edit history for the article, I see that in addition to my revert your edits have been multiply reverted by other editors, who have given other reasons apparently related to other parts of your edits. I didn't look over your edits beyond that, but I suggest that you do so, and possibly contact those other involved editors if the reasons for their reverts is not clear. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you heard about PhilWiki Community?[edit]

Did you know that there is a small community of editors in the Philippines who meet up and conduct activities online and offline to promote Wikimedia projects? Please take a look at our profile here. You might be interested to join. Thanks. --Filipinayzd 13:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. I looked at the linked page and don't think it's a good fit for me. I can occasionally be seen at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines, where I don't fit very well either. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you undoing my edits[edit]

Read it. It says literally that ikea serves food. They have restaurant in every store. So they also have food service as their industry. I didn’t vandalize or anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by General Solution of differential equation (talk • contribs) 18:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My errors. Sorry. I was reverting vandalism from ten different directions in WP:Huggle and your edits came in the middle of that. Again, these were my errors and I apologize for them. Please remove the related mistaken auto-generated messages from your user talk page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamendo page[edit]

Hello,

Please stop reverting the changes to the Jamendo page. We are the actual owners of the brand and we are trying to update it.

Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonajamendo (talk • contribs) 18:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Conflict of interest, WP:PROMOTION, WP:NOT, WP:POLICY, WP:5P and, incidentally, WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, WP:EL, and elsewhere.
Thank you very much! Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions you make to the Wiki "Canadian University Rowing Association"[edit]

Hello, recently I made edits to the Wiki "Canadian University Rowing Association" in this Wiki I added in all the results of the from the 2019 championship, this addition would be very beneficial to this page by keeping it up to date. You said that you didn't find it constructive and revered all of them and I couldn't disagree more. Harrisstephen300 November 7th, 2019

I looked back at my revert. I made the revert from WP:Huggle, and would have been looking at just the final edit in what I see now was a series of 15 edits you made. I don't really recall this revert but I see in looking back that the last edit was pretty extensive and, like all of the others, was made without explanation and without citing support. Looking at the article as a whole, I see that it is overall very light on citing support for its assertions.
However, presuming that your edits were made in good faith, I have undone my reversion. Please remove the auto-generated message related to the revert from your user talk page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What[edit]

First i never edited something on wikipeidia, and second i just learned how to edit. I also forgot third Who was the person i "edited"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyper9857 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what this regards. It appears to be a reaction to something I've done, but I don't know what. This talk page comment is the first contribution by Hyper9857 and the talk page for that user has never been edited by me or by anyone else. At this point, it's a mystery. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Șerban article[edit]

Hello, I'm MirceaVi. Of course I'm new to Wikipedia editing. I saw "reference needed" so simply I translated from Romanian what I thought relevant from the link I have added to references . The complete interview is in YouTube in Romanian, but I thought that what was published in the newspaper "Adevărul" will be enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MirceaVi (talk • contribs) 19:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that it might be something like that. I missed seeing that you had put a link to the source in the article, but even if I had seen that I probably would not have tried to fix it. Now that you bring this up again, I've given it a shot here. As I mentioned in the edit summary there, that probably needs improvement. See WP:CITE and {{cite news}} for background which, as a new editor, would probably be unfamiliar to you. Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 18 November 2019[edit]

Can you add the {{Pp-full||small=yes}}? Cheers! CentralTime301 18:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC) Cheers! CentralTime301 18:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done (as far as the admin attention edit request goes) @CentralTime301:, Wtmitchell is an admin - if they want this on their page that is really up to them. — xaosflux Talk 21:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lena Paul[edit]

Please give me some guidance as to which sources weren't considered reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11bravo (talk • contribs) 13:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see that you're new as a registered editor; welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for mentioning the title of the article of concern -- that simplified things for me; I often need to dig a bit to figure out what article new comments here concern.
I made that revert during a WP:Huggle session and only took a quick look then -- I've gone back for a closer look but still haven't looked very closely. What caught my eye, I think, was the paragraph here beginning with "She ran into sexism ...". I think my revert was just in reaction to the replacement of article content with a para having no supporting cite at the end. I see on looking back now, though, that there is what seems to be intended as a direct quote there (it is missing the introductory double-quote char) attributed inline to Yves Yan of www.trendzz.com (the word with is doubled there). That attribution might satisfy the requirement of WP:V that all direct quotes require support (I haven't verified it), but it's not very good as a supporting citation; see WP:CITE and Help:Footnotes. I hope that helps. Discuss further here if need be -- I'm pretty busy on other things but I'll try to help if I can. Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

added EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
removed Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

readded Beeblebrox
removed Deskana

Interface administrator changes

readded Evad37

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]

Hello Wtmitchell: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Everedux (talk) 19:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Happy New Year Wtmitchell![edit]

Happy New Year!
Hello Wtmitchell:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Donner60 (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

December 2019[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Wtmitchell. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Beecroft's flying squirrel—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wtmitchell/Archive_13_(2019)&oldid=1211821047"